Well, that is true enough, Neil. But someone who can't take being proven "wrong" is already enmeshed in the duality of right and wrong, so their communication is limited to those parameters. What, I think, Pat is suggesting, is something beyond right and wrong, which separates us. His notion that we can find that viewpoint within us that gives us the understanding that, while we are individuals, we are also intrinsically bound as one vital creation, that what effects me also effects you, including what I think and feel...this notion leads to a new morality not with new ideas about morality, but with a new viewpoint that how I hold my mind and heart creates my experience and influences everything and everyone in it. Because of this (the new ethics also) I am able to act always for the greater good, and that acting for my own good is acting for the greater good simply because this connection holds in my mind the greater good always. (the crux, I think, of Rand's Altruism, lost for the most part, to dualistic thinkers.)
On Aug 30, 6:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I know you are Gabby. There are sadly many who just can't take it. > > On 30 Aug, 18:39, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This question is irrelevant to the self that depends on reflection. > > The reflection shows whatever it shows - it is neither right nor > > wrong. These selfs naturally categorize along the lines of being true > > or untrue. These selfs wouldn’t know what to counterbalance honesty > > with. That’s my view. And I’m always happy to be proven wrong. > > > On 30 Aug., 17:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Does this not rather neglect the idea that a rational individual might > > > be wrong rather than 'viewpointed'? > > > > On 30 Aug, 14:17, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your view is wrong because your viewpoint is yours and whatever you > > > > create you say you are aware of, it will still remain your viewpoint > > > > and not ours. What you describe resembles the process of a natural > > > > bias cell turning undetectable, wandering further inside, multi- > > > > copying itself and gaining automatic control from there. My viewpoint. > > > > A different viewpoint. No misunderstanding. > > > > > On 29 Aug., 17:10, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I see the new morality in this because: an awareness of how our > > > > > viewpoint creates our experience naturally allows for an intrinsic > > > > > morality - one that comes from the inside and moves out, instead of > > > > > being developed and then imposed from the outside in. We no longer > > > > > recognize it externally as a social imperative and mold our actions > > > > > accordingly, but move through it in our experience because our > > > > > viewpoint allows our connection with all of humanity to provide the > > > > > basis for moral and ethical behavior. > > > > > > On Aug 27, 9:40 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't see a new morality in any of this. I have long been rather > > > > > > frightened of morality, which is often no better than a claim to be > > > > > > better than 'anything goes'. Spinoza can be seen as asking us to > > > > > > accept some basic values and a fair, secular society as the basis > > > > > > for > > > > > > freedom of the individual within those rules. Russell and others > > > > > > may > > > > > > have said much the same, withdrawing God to agnosticism and > > > > > > questions > > > > > > about a reality different from either the physical or the mental > > > > > > (science goes there). Larkin (they fuck us up our Mums and Dads) > > > > > > still managed to be a racist. I think we should be questioning the > > > > > > deep and iconic in our societies on a broader base than current > > > > > > science. We should have rights (however impossible to ground > > > > > > intellectually) and make these truly workable - then recognise > > > > > > responsibilities and ensure we can stick to these. This, in turn > > > > > > leads to questions on authority and how that can be legitimate (the > > > > > > postmodern question before long-winded hacks got into it). > > > > > > Somewhere > > > > > > in all this it would help us to know better that science is never > > > > > > grounded in logic - there is always approximation and room for > > > > > > imagination. We often want to ground our morality in some kind of > > > > > > lust for certainty. History shows we can place our faith in any old > > > > > > bull (Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher, Rwanda etc. ad infinitum). Lyotard > > > > > > wrote a great ripping yarn on the 'Libidinal Economy' years ago > > > > > > (1974?). At the heart of a new morality we need a proper and fair > > > > > > review of living and what is possible, what is fable and what is > > > > > > fact > > > > > > (recognising facts are not certain and forever). > > > > > > I often think Dr. King got it wrong when he repeated that tyranny > > > > > > anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere - my guess is we are > > > > > > ruled > > > > > > by tyranny that can lie to us about almost everything. What we need > > > > > > to do is deconstruct (not the gormless French philosophy of > > > > > > literature) as we construct genuinely new ways of using our > > > > > > knowledges, and take care we recognise we will not condone > > > > > > everything > > > > > > (beaten women in Burkas etc) and there is a practical need for law > > > > > > and > > > > > > policing. We should not deny the agents of god stuff too quickly - > > > > > > but also remember what chronic shits such groups have often been. > > > > > > Damn good try Pat - whether I agree or not is immaterial - we need > > > > > > the > > > > > > realm of possibilities. > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 14:02, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 13:33, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I can't speak to Pat's motives, but I will say what I think in > > > > > > > > light > > > > > > > > of his work. He courageously outlines for us, the realm of > > > > > > > > possibility as he sees it. He tells us that we cannot change > > > > > > > > what is, > > > > > > > > which is everything possible. But we choose our awareness of > > > > > > > > all that > > > > > > > > is, our viewpoint. But doing this, we change who we are and > > > > > > > > live our > > > > > > > > potentiality of all that is. This is how we, as some say, co > > > > > > > > create. > > > > > > > > We do by making the possible real. We don't really change what > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > Exactly!! To encapsulate that, "Make it up as you go along; > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > have no choice but to do that." In a weird way, when we 'make it > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > as we go along', we are, in reality, 'going with the flow' and, > > > > > > > as you > > > > > > > say, become co-creators, as we are the agents of God. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 8:20 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The thing about it though, all of it is that here Pat is > > > > > > > > > giving us > > > > > > > > > what he rationalises as a cure for man's ills, a system based > > > > > > > > > upon the > > > > > > > > > spirtual belife of the Oneness of God, but who's logic is > > > > > > > > > scientific. > > > > > > > > > He presents it as a viable system for the betterment of man, > > > > > > > > > and yet a > > > > > > > > > part of it says that what will be will be, and we have no > > > > > > > > > control over > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > So why present it at all, what are his hopes? It is clear to > > > > > > > > > me that > > > > > > > > > the uptake of this idea may not ever happen, at least on the > > > > > > > > > scale > > > > > > > > > that Pat says is must. Who's mind is he trying to change and > > > > > > > > > why, in > > > > > > > > > the light of his revelation that none of us have a choice in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > > > If instead then he wants us all to become more aware of the > > > > > > > > > truth of > > > > > > > > > the matter, then agian how are we to do this, if we cannot > > > > > > > > > will it so? > > > > > > > > > > This idea denies us any sort of control over our Selfs or our > > > > > > > > > destiny's, so really what is the point of mooting such an > > > > > > > > > idea to us, > > > > > > > > > if we cannot control wheater or not we belive it? > > > > > > > > > > In short what are Pat's motives for posting this? > > > > > > > > Pat hat has motives then I'm afraid I am witnessing the > > > > evidance of> > > > > Pat's own will here, which invalidtates his claim > > > > that he has none, > > > > > > > > d > does it not? > > > > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 1 Molly BrogaBrogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What I like most about your work, Pat, is that it takes us > > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > monism into a new paradigm, into completion with the > > > > > > > > > > inclusion of > > > > > > > > > > modern science, allowing clarity of the rational in the > > > > > > > > > > trans > > > > > > > > > > rational. I have been tossing around your no free will > > > > > > > > > > concept, and > > > > > > > > > > suspect that reticence to it may be a matter of semantics. > > > > > > > > > > I have the > > > > > > > > > > same trouble when people talk about the world being > > > > > > > > > > "illusion", or the > > > > > > > > > > world of duality an illusion. In our lives, there is > > > > > > > > > > duality, but > > > > > > > > > > there is also more, there is non duality. And we can > > > > > > > > > > choose our > > > > > > > > > > viewpoint, giving us the feeling of free will. We are at > > > > > > > > > > the pool of > > > > > > > > > > Bethesda and our own self image prevents our entry into the > > > > > > > > > > waters. > > > > > > > > > > Only our own higher ontology can stir the water for us, and > > > > > > > > > > in this > > > > > > > > > > awareness, we are the first in. But, as you say, we reach > > > > > > > > > > the point > > > > > > > > > > where we understand that what we are choosing is to be > > > > > > > > > > aware of our > > > > > > > > > > own divine nature in a different way. So when you say that > > > > > > > > > > it always > > > > > > > > > > is, but our awareness of all that is changes, not being but > > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > of being changes- be still and know that I AM, this I can > > > > > > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Over the past few days, as I’ve returned to this forum > > > > > > > > > > > and responded > > > > > > > > > > > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems > > > > > > > > > > > that cave caused > > > > > > > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have > > > > > > > > > > > found my > > > > > > > > > > > statements cong sing in certain ways, particularly in the > > > > > > > > > > > area of > > > > > > > > > > > morality, which seems to be a popular topic on the forum > > > > > > > > > > > based on the > > > > > > > > > > > recent posting titled ‘More morality’. In particular, > > > > > > > > > > > Lee’s reticence > > > > > > > > > > > to accept that a decent morality can be derived from my > > > > > > > > > > > viewpoint, > > > > > > > > > > > especially in light of the proposed loss of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > So, I feel > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to reveal a few of the cards I’ve been holding > > > > > > > > > > > in this > > > > > > > > > > > regard. The following is an excerpt from my book from > > > > > > > > > > > the chapter > > > > > > > > > > > ca‘Sed ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve > > > > > > > > > > > described my > > > > > > > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the > > > > > > > > > > > older members > > > > > > > > > > > here > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
